Clinton78

Great question.

I have already stated that the previous researchers should be commended but the research into this particular era is not correct. I have added a few statements already regarding the new facts so why don't you give it a go. Show me something worthy of discussion instead of trying to play the hero. You have added nothing to this discussion so far except to attempt to argue with me. Shar2: Apologies, but this started as a decent topic into the discussion of a possible new RLM colour and instead it has descended into sillyness by someone who has added absolutely nothing constructive except to try and rattle my cage once again. If he has nothing worthy to post to discredit my statements then why has he felt the urge to get involved. Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and supply some evidence to the contrary.

Recycling them would be much kinder to the environment.

Stonar, I was just waiting for you to pipe up. Unless you have any remotely interesting primary source evidence to disprove the statements I've made, please don't try and be all cute and heroic. I was called out to explain my statement, and I did. So I'm expected to just keep quiet or sugar coat the fact that the previous research into this eras camouflage and markings is misleading. How can I suggest that the new findings are correct without calling into doubt the previous findings. Why don't you go and do some of your own research, using primary sources instead of your book collection and then you might start to see what myself and quite a few others have. Take it or leave it...

Yes I mean Karl Ries.

Apologies that was a typo, I meant the last weeks of 1939. I did not state that Dr Prien is wrong "on all counts". I intended to point out that "In Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945, Teil 2, Der Sitzkrieg 1/9/1939 - 9/5/1940 By Jochen Prien et al, it states that the camouflage started to be altered in December 1939" . This I was trying to emphasise as being one of the written accounts that Graham asked for that I have at my disposal, that I think is for the most part correct in regards to this subject. If it reads any differently then that was not my intention.

George, Thank you for your reply in response to my attempt at explaining the reasoning for my current understanding into the camouflage practices of the Luftwaffe fighter force during 1939 and 1940. As I was writing it I was even then awaiting with anticipation for someone to post almost exactly what you have pointed out. For the most part I agree. I mean these guys who have written these previous works are surely not idiots and I wasn't for one second suggesting so. I do however get a bit annoyed when they publish their works with such authority as to say this is historical fact when at the point they published they did have not anywhere near enough photographic reference material to set their findings in stone. There was a lot of jumping to conclusions which becomes apparent when you take into consideration the vast amount of photographic evidence that we have available to us. Obviously as with all things of this nature opinions are set to change as and when new evidence becomes available. As I'm sure you know there was a point in our history when all us humans thought that the earth was flat. Also that we and our planet were created by a god like being in the heavens. As is the nature of 'at the time' scientific and historical research these things are recorded down in scriptures and books for sharing with future generations to learn from. We seem to automatically put a huge amount of faith into what we read in books until someone writes another book to prove or disprove those ideas. For example Kenneth Merrick himself has published quite a few different volumes over the years on the markings and camouflage systems used by the Luftwaffe. Surely his first book was absolutely correct and complete? Obviously not, as he saw fit to expand on his understandings of the topic and publish even more volumes over the years. I was asked to explain where the opinions of myself and the current research team is written down. At this precise moment in time I can't tell you as it is yet to be published for public viewing. Now why is it that we have a lot more photographic evidence available to us than the previous researchers in this field. There was a period during, just after the war, and in first few decades since that we saw an obvious surge in photographic material to use as a basis for the research into the the camouflage of the Luftwaffe. There was not much in the way of surviving documentary evidence and then especially right after the war there was still a stigma attached to researching anything to do with the Nazi war machine. Gradually, research by aviation historians was undertaken into the camouflage and markings etc using this immediately available existing photographic research material which I must add was only available through physically visiting archives, sharing information between each other via letter, and actually visiting the veterans willing to share their photo albums and experiences who were still quite young and healthy (many just wanted to forget....). All in all though a very slow process, but anyway the initial and up to about the 90's ideas regarding the camouflage and markings were assumed and that was that, books were written. In the 90's with the invention of the internet and it's, at first gradual, but later rather ferocious uptake by the average historian/hobbyist as a tool. It became much quicker to share information and photos between fellow researchers the world over. This massively sped up the process of sharing photos and ideas between fellow researchers so there was another influx of fresh evidence that became available to update the older known opinions and ideas. Again books were written and that was that and those opinions and ideas have continued into our present day understanding of the subject. Now over the last 5-10 years us WW2 historical researchers have been enjoying a rather unique period regarding the availability of new and unpublished, previously unseen photographic evidence. This has been made possible by eBay. Where before you would have to visit a specialist photo seller and buy a photo album or single photo, now every single specialist photo seller presents their wares to the highest bidder on a platform that anyone can access from the comfort of their own home. Even if you do not buy said photos you can still preview them to glean any relevant information to help your studies. Now I mentioned earlier that just after the war you had a few German veterans that were willing to share their photos and experiences. You also had a great many more though that just wanted to forget the horrors of WW2, bottle up, and lock away their memories, both physical and mental. We are currently experiencing another unique but rather more sadder period of time. One that offers us WW2 historians a window of opportunity to experience another influx of new, unpublished and unseen photos. Having come to the 70+ year mark since the end of WW2, these guys that wanted to forget and lock away their personal photographic albums are sadly passing away. This means that the families are having to go through and sort all of the belongings of the deceased family member and to our benefit are uncovering all of these lost and forgotten about photo albums from their service during the war. This is the new stage and influx of photos that we are able use to update our collective knowledge regarding the markings and camouflage systems used by the Luftwaffe during WW2 and again books are being written..... But.... Unlike before where as the years go on more and more new and unseen photos have emerged there will be a steady and perhaps rather abrupt decline as the last of these hidden gems are found. So realistically we are coming to the end of any chance of discovering anything new, with perhaps only a very rare chance of something popping up every now and again. Currently we have so much period, primary source, photographic information available to us that we have quite frankly nailed it. All old and new options and ideas have been thrown around and discussed and we are in a position to say with some certainty and authority that we know what the practices were. We have mapped it all out chronologically and it all fits and works together. It's proven to the very best of what we can using the only information that will ever be available. Obviously there are some 'grey' areas, pun intended, regarding some of the practices used in the latter stages of the Battle of Britain but beyond finding a previously unknown period German document specifically explaining what was happening then sadly educated guesses will have to be undertaken by the best authorities able to. Regardless of that small blip, the main area that Graham asked me to elaborate on is totally nailed. You know, there is nothing that could ever come to light that could change our knowledge of this period with regards to when and how camouflage changed in 1939 to 1940. Anyone saying anything different would literally be the same as someone coming along in this day and age and saying the Earth is flat. It really is as simple as that. So you are more than welcome to disregard anything I say as BS if you like, I really don't mind because I'm quite content in knowing that what I am explaining is absolutely historically accurate.

Graham, Please trust me, the Reiss, Kookaburra, and Monogram books are practically useless other than for the photographic content and even then the captions need to be just overlooked completely for the most part. Merrick mentions various stages of transition from RLM70/71 to the new RLM 71/02 scheme which is totally incorrect. Ullmann briefly mentions the new camouflage explaining that it consisted of RLM 02, 70, and 75. Well that's either a typo or again totally incorrect too as they were actually using 02/71/65. Unsure really as I rarely pay much attention to any of the current Luftwaffe camouflage books because I'm sorry to say they just don't cut it for me. I don't mean to have a go at these guys but it's clear they did not have anywhere near the required amount of correctly dated photographic material to be able to accurately make many of their claims. In Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945, Teil 2, Der Sitzkrieg 1/9/1939 - 9/5/1940 By Jochen Prien et al, in states that the camouflage started to be altered in December 1939...... I remember we did go over this at some length in this topic here and I'm really loathe to explain the situation again but you really do have to start looking at sources other than what's published in secondary source books. Although Merrick and Ullmann can be commended for their efforts and they might even get their information correct on later war aircraft. I do not specialise in those later eras so I wouldn't know but for the late 1939 to end 1940 period they have got it very wrong. As I have stated before I am currently part of a project, working alongside the worlds leading Luftwaffe and WW2 aviation researchers and we have at our disposal the largest known photographic database for this period ever assembled. In many cases we have a photo of nearly every single aircraft in a unit at any given time. Not only that, we have them precisely dated. This has enabled us to see exactly what was going on with the camouflage and at what stages it changed as well as the markings. In most cases we can trace an aircraft throughout it's service 'if' from 1939 to whenever it was transferred out or was lost. This means that we can document the camouflage and markings changes that happened during this period very precisely. There is overwhelming photographic evidence to support my claims here and in the other older topic I linked. You really need to start looking outside of the box and realise that just because it's written in a book, it doesn't mean that it is factually and historically correct. Try not to put as much faith in books. Most of what has already been written about the camouflage and markings for this period is very inaccurate and very misleading. It shows a complete lack of knowledge or grasp of what was actually happening during this period. I really am not saying all this to blow my own trumpet but it is what it is. I'm not saying it to be a pompous, know it all, bottom. Everything I am saying can and will be backed up with photographic evidence when the project is finally published and I can assure you that you will be in for a real treat as it's going to set the record straight once and for all with regards to the markings and camouflage systems used for every unit during 1939 and 1940. It really is as simple as that. I personally strive for total unwavering historical accuracy in everything that I do and if I did not know it to be fact I would not be saying it in public I can assure you. The entire single engine Luftwaffe fighter force was repainted in December 1939 from the old RLM 70/71/65 scheme to the new RLM 02/71/65 scheme. Any aircraft being built at this time were painted in the new RLM 02/71/65 scheme so that they left the factory in the new scheme. It really is quite simple when you see it all mapped out chronologically throughout the period that we are discussing, markings and all. Things really have moved on in the last 5 - 10 years..... I can't really say anything more than that but just have faith in what I say because my intention is not to mislead anyone but to educate as best I can where I see misinformation put forward as historical fact. It really drives me nuts seeing the same old crap regurgitated over and over again just because it's written in a book. Anyway back to this new RLM83.....

That is correct. Physical evidence is yet to be found.

Post 72: Why is it expected that the Ju88A-4/ 'Trop' that landed in Switzerland on 21st Oct 1943 was painted in the 'reported' blue at the factory. The aircrafts unit 1./KG54 were operating in the Med from Dec 41 to June 43. So theres no reason why it cannot have been painted in the field whilst it was operating in the Med. A factory would not know which units the aircraft it was building would eventually be assigned to. What colour would they know to paint which trop Ju88s? Blue or sand? Surely it would be even sillier flying all these aircraft away from the the units frontline base to repaint them in this new scheme at some intermediate depot. As can be seen in photos, tactical markings and whole temporary schemes were commonly painted in the field or in hangars at the frontline airbase. I mean they managed to re-paint the Luftwaffe's entire fighter fleet in the last weeks of 1940 with no problems. You make it sound as though the repainting of an aircraft was such a difficult task and impossible to do in the field. What else would you need other than material to mask the windows, a spray gun unit, and the paint? It was a lot more widespread than you think.

According to Michael Ullmann and the Bv138 handbuch dated 1942, the Bv138 was painted in RLM72/73/65 as standard. This new maritime RLM83 blue seems to have been designed to blend in with the more bluer water colours that can be seen in the Mediterranean theatre instead of the grey/greens of the northern European theatres for which RLM72/73 would be ideal. The new RLM83 blue would perhaps not be as beneficial in the darker waters of northern Europe so I suspect that it would have been available as an in field applied option for aircraft assigned to units operating in the Med. So being that the factory would not know which aircraft would eventually be assigned to which unit they more than likely all left the factories in 72/73/65 as standard and were altered to taste with the new 83 if and when an aircraft needed it whilst serving in the Med. Did the Bv138 float come from an aircraft that at some point was serving in the Med? I find it interesting that the "Isolierlack gespritzt" maintenance marking appears to have been painted in the same colour as the upper surface of the float. Which leads me to believe that we are looking at the same colours that the aircraft left the factory in and not a field applied upper surface. Purely speculation of course...

Precisely..... I have every commercially available Luftwaffe paint chip set which I could scan but I can't see that being advantageous here because I don't know if they are accurate, and then my scanner will translate it, then the software will translate it, then it changes when saved to jpeg, then it changes again when it's uniquely translated by other peoples monitors and the final projection is rarely the same as what I'm looking at. Same scenario with these photos of the Bv138 float. It would be nice to learn the circumstances surrounding the float and how it survived/has been stored up to when these photo were taken? It does look blue to my eyes but perhaps the other pigments that made up the RLM72/73 have diminished over the years allowing more of the blue to show. I don't know enough really to comment on that but.......

It all depends on whether the blue that they are seeing with their own eyes in real life on the actual relic and the blue that we are seeing via a digital camera under fluorescent lighting, then jpeg compressed, and uploaded to the net was still blue 70 years ago when it was sprayed onto the aircraft. I don't think anyone is denying that there is strong documentary and firsthand evidence to suggest that a maritime RLM blue was a serious possibility. It's just whether that Bv138 float or the guys sand paper is covered in it or not.

I agree, Mr. Ullmann is more than likely on the mark with this new and until now unknown colour. The documents he has found speak for themselves in that regard. It's a shame that his name is being attached to this 'News Flash' before any serious and in depth tests are carried out by people who know what they are talking about in the science behind the make up and deterioration of wartime RLM paint. As Nick pointed out it's the scrambling by others to find surviving examples of this new colour whilst disregarding any other possible reasoning which is negative to their 'Holy Grail' or 'Golden ticket' that worries me in this instance. The whole news flash seems a bit sensationalist to me with the added sprinkling of a respected RLM authors name to add to the buzz. They should have waited until at least Ullmann had given his views on the samples. It worries me too about the sample being sourced from the sandpaper used to rub away the paint in question. Surely that could lead to the sample being seriously contaminated and as a consequence flawed? Anyway hopefully more evidence of this colour can be found in the future.

Thanks for your expert opinions and confirmation of your own bafflement of this latest.... finding....